Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

In other words: it is all about ME, ME, ME, MacMacMac. Everyone else be damned.

No, it's not. It's all about me choosing for me, and you choosing for you. What it's not about is: me choosing for you, and you choosing for me. Many people in this country (on both sides of the aisle) don't seem to understand that basic concept.

Quote:

Did you choose to be born to your parents? Did you choose to be born in the USA or your home state versus another country?

Irrelevant. No one but no one has any such choice.

Quote:

Did you choose to use public roads rather than only use your bare hands to wade through the wild Floridian Everglades every where you went?

Nope. I paid for that. Willingly.

Quote:

Did you choose for the US to be a republic with representative democracy ...

Nope. Others did that two centuries ago.

Quote:

... depending on well-educated citizens who are responsible and accountable for self-government ...

I wish there were more such people.

Quote:

... rather than a failed state such as Somalia filled with Ayn Rand-styled "rugged individuals" choosing their self-interest as they axe each other to death? etc. etc.

This country was built on rugged individualism. I can't say that this is uniquely American, but it seems a foreign concept elsewhere in the world.

Quote:

People who are indoctrinated to think of everything as a personal "choice" and of themselves merely as consumers in "free" markets rather than responsible citizens and members of civilized society equate the world to being nothing more complicated than being left alone to choose Crest over Colgate toothpaste. Simplistic lies.

Yes, marketing is filled with bullcrap. Shrug.

Quote:

... this book even explains why MacMacMac might want to live in North Carolina.

I don't know that author, nor he me. So how can he possibly know why I choose to move to NC? The real reason: Raleigh is a fast-growing city with abundant tech jobs. (I've not read your cited source, but am I to expect in it something about job growth in NC? More likely your conclusion is just your personal rant.)

So ... if you don't agree with my thinking, that's fine. I'm okay with that. But why must you criticize me? I've not criticized the other side. I'm perfectly willing to let each side have his own. But apparently you're not.

I don't think the CP1 has been successful, probably because it is overpriced. That said, the going rate in the UK is now £2600 against a list price of £4000+. With the CP5 at £1900+ I think the price differential now favours CP1. I think the CP1 is now actually (finally) worth its price. The EPs are just to die for James - and as far as AP sounds go I just have to accept I'm a Yamaha man at heart.

The Nord's action just gets on my nerves a bit to be honest so I've traded it against the CP. Great sounds and it's been a privilege to own the Nord but it had to go!

It's so weird though Dewster - you are obviously referring to Mac - but I quite often find those with what I would call the most right wing, laissez-faire, look-after-number-one attitudes about society and community and all that big stuff are often, on a more individual, personal level, the kindest most generous people. There are some high profile examples. Our Mrs Thatcher, the most divisive and in many ways hated prime minister we have had in the modern era, with a vicious and uncaring public image was capable (and many examples have surfaced over the years) of astonishingly kind and generous personal gestures, quite at odds with her public personua.

So it might not be wise to judge so harshly - although I completely take your point.

You can say exactly the same about almost anyone on the planet including Hitler.

For every one of her kind gestures, I can show you a whole community she ruined and the gravestones of those she drove to suicide. I am a very forgiving person who tries to see good in everyone, but thatcher is the one person I can think of where I shall openly rejoice the day she dies, and anyone that knows me in real life would know how out of character saying such a thing is, but I despise what she did to this country and how many lives she wrecked.

For every one of her kind gestures, I can show you a whole community she ruined and the gravestones of those she drove to suicide. I am a very forgiving person who tries to see good in everyone, but thatcher is the one person I can think of where I shall openly rejoice the day she dies, and anyone that knows me in real life would know how out of character saying such a thing is, but I despise what she did to this country and how many lives she wrecked.

Yes but what I was trying to say, and what gv said more explicitly (and more eloquently) is that the conservatives (those on the right politically) can tend to be, oh, I don't know, more generous, kinder if you like in the sense of giving to others. That's on a personal level I mean. I'm not affiliated to any political party - and I wouldn't vote Conservative while there's breath in my body by the way - but I have observed that characteristic.

The more power you give the government improve the situation of the poorest, the greater the number of people pushed into poverty and dependence by that same government.

The 1960's era War on Poverty created this problem. Many of us can remember the shame associated with "living on the dole", as the British term it. But as each new generation of children grow up in such an environment, it becomes the norm, accepted as the standard (and only) way of life. The war on poverty has failed, and has only created a new dependent class. (And a ready source of votes for the pols who engendered it.)

And this:

Quote:

I can look around and see many beneficial things provided by government but essentially every one I see is actually provided by state and local government, which is a very small part of our tax burden. The Feds take the lion share and do precious little good with it.

City and county governments are in touch with the needs of the local population and with the cultural norms of the region. States a bit less so. And the federal government is utterly out of touch.

My complaints are largely leveled at the federal government. In post-war America the feds have usurped state and local powers by means of taxation. And when people are forced to pay the feds for state/local programs, they are no longer able to endure state/local taxation for those purposes. The feds win by trumping state/local powers. In public works. In education. In health care. In most everything.

You ask if we can ...

Quote:

... imagine how you would feel if in addition to your national taxes you had to pay an even larger portion of your wealth to an all-EU super-government, which promptly wasted it on projects that accomplish precious little.

In America, we don't have to imagine. We live with it constantly.

Your point here ...

Quote:

American decline and American socialism go tightly hand in hand, which is why so many people oppose it despite the obvious theoretical benefits of having the government take care of anything you might worry about.

... is central to mine. I call it losership. That term might seem inflamatory. But it's fact. And sad. And the key to our possible downfall. I'll not likely live to see the fall of America. But my children and grandson likely will. Nothing hurts me more.

This country was built on rugged individualism. I can't say that this is uniquely American, but it seems a foreign concept elsewhere in the world.

It's interesting that the imperialists romanticize the stealing of a land.

Our land was built using slave labor, let's not get carried away.

Slave labor, certainly (continuing up to this day but carried out now instead of by black slaves by the 11 to 25 million abused & exploited hungry Latin American men, women & children who were actively recruited into the US with village to village tax-subsidized U.S. corporate marketing campaigns -- despite all the rhetoric to the contrary). Some have argued that the black slaves had it better than the new Latin American slaves today that keep America's meat, vegetables, restaurant meals, construction, lawncare, home-cleaning, etc. etc. artificially cheap by using the labor of fearful refugees denied their human rights.

However, don't forget the other grand pillar at the foundation of the American Nation: deliberate genocide (in the form of biological warfare, massacres and mass murder a.k.a. heinous crimes against humanity).

one small example:

Quote:

On June 29, 1763, a week after the siege began, Bouquet was preparing to lead an expedition to relieve Fort Pitt when he received a letter from Amherst making the following proposal: "Could it not be contrived to send the smallpox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." [1]Bouquet agreed, writing back to Amherst on July 13, 1763: "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself." Amherst responded favorably on July 16, 1763: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."[2]As it turned out, however, officers at the besieged Fort Pitt had already exposed the Indians in just the manner Amherst and Bouquet were discussing. During a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Captain Simeon Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox ward "out of regard to them" after the Delawares pledged to renew their friendship.

And you can count yourself crossed-off the Christmas card list too, by the way!

I know, I know. Sorry is an inadequate word in such circumstances. Perhaps a lifetime of regret would be appropriate punishment? Maybe that is my destiny? But at least I'll have an illuminated Yamaha logo to compensate! Good times!!

Very funny! And yes, that could have been shot in front of a CP1 - at the end of the day there's very little difference between raging naked flames and Yamaha's phosphorescent display (three level adjustability and off). There's a primeval quality to both!

A family member posted a question on FaceBook as a result of my response to another post of his. His views are probably more aligned with MacMacMac.

He asked the following question ... Everybody: I like to try something if you can help me out. I like to ask a question of all out there in Facebook land:

Q: Do you know/feel/believe you are living in a better country than Europeans? Please consider the health issues, the food, the banking system, the schools, the people, our form of government and importantly - the freedoms.

To date I am the only person to reply to his post. Here's what I wrote ...

As an America who has lived 44 years in the US and 18 years in the Netherlands, my vote goes to Europe, and more specifically, the Netherlands.

Health care ... Everyone in Western Europe (Scandinavia, Australia, Japan, and Canada) is covered by universal health care. As a result of that universal health care we enjoy a lower infant mortality rate and a greater longevity rate (when compared to the US). I use those rates to judge the overall health of a country. (These statistics can be found at our own CIA World Factbook ... or NationMaster.com ... I have them posted at my web site as well.) The cost of health care through my private health care provider here is about half of that in the US.

I think the entire world is aware that two thirds of the US population are overweight; one third of the US population is obese. (Obese is a having a BMI of greater than 30.)

Transportation - we have better roads in Holland than the US. The train system here in the Netherlands is excellent. When entering and exiting a bus, tram, or train one only has to flash a plastic card over a card reader and the amount of the trip is automatically deducted from your balance. I have my card set up so it is automatically 'filled up' when it gets below a certain limit.

If you like to get around by bike, there are bike paths everywhere. I own two bikes and prefer to use my bike instead of my car.

Banking - no one here uses checks. We pay with a debit card and most if not all bills are paid online. (Speaking of online, my village of 20,000+ inhabitants was recently completely wired up with optical fiber.)

Education - everyone can afford to go to university, everyone.

Freedoms - I can't imagine a more free country than the Netherlands. The Netherlands was either the first or second country in the world to legalize same sex marriage. We don't have just two political parties here, we have a collection of 12 or so. Compromise is not a foreign concept like in the US.

We can buy guns here in the Netherlands but not over the counter like in the US. You must first join a local gun club for one year and the club evaluates you while the government also does a background check. If you receive a 'clean bill of health' you may purchase a gun.

Everyone here enjoys the same freedoms as in the US. The overall standard of living is higher here than in the US ... and I've given more than several specific examples to back that claim up.

I like the fact that all telephone lines and computer cables, etc. are run underground and not strung on poles in plain sight.

If you really want to compare issues between countries, go to NationMaster.com and you can easily compare the percentage of a population in prison (the US is number one as a percentage\per capita), the literacy rate, education levels, agricultural exports, teenage pregnancy rates ... whatever.

The 1960's era War on Poverty created this problem. Many of us can remember the shame associated with "living on the dole", as the British term it. But as each new generation of children grow up in such an environment, it becomes the norm, accepted as the standard (and only) way of life. The war on poverty has failed, and has only created a new dependent class. (And a ready source of votes for the pols who engendered it.)

Personally I'm glad things have moved on enough so that people no longer feel shame if they are out of work through no fault of their own and have to claim back from a system they've been contributing to all the time they've been working.

Speak to my grandmother (no longer with us) she can remember a time when if a girl got pregnant out of wedlock in the UK she'd have a good chance of being placed (and forgotten about) in a mental institution, I am glad things move forwards.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with SOME people but we get to hear about those plastered across the front pages of the UK tabloid press, implying everyone on welfare fall into this category when it simply isn't true.

A good friend of mine while at university became good friends with another guy. This guys parents, brothers and grandparents all lived their lives deliberately sponging off the state. My friend went back to this guys house and all his family were laughing at them both for being at Uni and for trying to work for a living.

However for every family like the above, there are 1000s of people in dire need that are not conning the system.

I know people born with severe disabilities both mental and physical stopping them ever from doing work in a normal working environment

A few charity/government schemes have been set up to give them a sense of self worth where they are working at the mercy of people donating or tax payers expense in that they aren't making a profit, but it is giving them self worth, but those seem to be being cut more and more lately.

Due to the minority of people conning the system and those being heavily publicised, people are scared to admit they are on welfare, not because of shame but because so many others now think they are pulling a fast one, they are deemed guilty without trial.

But, take any race of people from any country, any religious belief, any sexual preference, white, black, asian etc. You could spend the next year printing weekly headlines of someone from that race/gender/religion being a sponger, being violent, being a bully or whatever. But just because some are like that we don't presume all are.

If there's 1000 people claiming they are starving and 50 of them aren't, I would rather 1000 people get handouts and those 50 people live off other peoples generosity than no one gets it and 950 people go without food. And I view the whole of welfare with that mindset.

Sure in an ideal world the 50 would be found out but in an ideal world, those at the top would treat their workers fairly, wouldn't use loopholes not to pay tax etc.

over the years they try to weed out the cheats and scroungers but end up harming those in greatest need. I can give yo a few real life examples. I spent some time in care (children's home) as a teenager. I witnessed people reach 18/19. thrown out of the home with zero family to fall back on, zero help, if they didn't have a roof over their head, they couldn't go to their parents, relatives etc as many didn't have them.

About 80% of the people I was in care with were dead by the time I was 35.

My wife left home a couple of weeks before her 16 birthday with her brother who was a year older, due to their new step dad sexually abusing my wife. The authorities were informed but nothing could be proven. At 16 she started a hairdressing apprenticeship (and today, 31 years later, is happily self employed as a mobile hairdresser).

They were given housing benefit that allowed them to rent a one room tiny bedsit. They needed this, it allowed them to work, exist and get away from her stepdad.

Today her brother is a policeman, she is self employed, both hard working tax payers, but if another young girl found themselves in my wife's horrible position, due to the government clamping down on cheats and spongers, they would no longer get housing benefit as it's been stopped for people that age.

Which is what I mean by rules put in place to stop the spongers harming the people that really need help.

Trouble is, its very hard for the poor to be poor compared to 50+ years ago.

So many rules and regulations in place, illegal to beg in certain places, cost of housing (in England) off the scale compared to what it was like before Thatcher introduced the greed culture.

Look at some of the worlds greatest from history, they simply couldn't do what they did today. So many of them didn't fit into the school system, but weren't written off as thug's and louts, many of therm started work at 13-14 etc.

My son wanted to work when he was 15 in his school holidays, but no one would employ him, not because he isn't capable (studying systems engineering at uni) but because company policy wouldn't allow it due to health and safety/insurance etc.

When I was 19, I lived in Guildford in Surrey which is considered a very affluent part of the UK. I rented a one bedroomed flat (bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom) with my wife (then girlfriend) for £20 a week each. The rates were next to nothing as were the electricity bills.

My wife earned very little doing her apprenticeship and I worked in a small hardware shop which I loved but the pay wasn't very good. We could still easily afford to rent our flat, eat, and go out a few times a week to the pub etc.

The cost to buy an average 3 bed semi house in Guildford was around £20k when Thatcher came to power in 1979Two years later in 1981 it had risen to £30kAnother two years and it was £34KAnother two years and it was £48KAnother two years in 1987 it was 72KAnother two years in 1989 and it has risen from £20k ten years ago to £95k

What it meant in reality is no one could do the sensible thing and save up for a deposit because the prices rose far faster than anyone could possibly save.

So the banks etc offered 100% mortgages (even higher in some cases).

Then greedy people realised they could take out a 100% mortgage, rent out their home for a year or two and sell it and make a fortune. This meant that loads of people started to buy to let. Which meant that they needed the rent to be enough to pay their mortgages, which meant the cost of renting went through the roof.

And it very soon became what is still the case today, many people didn't earn enough to qualify for a decent rate mortgage but the amount of rent they pay would easily cover the mortgage repayments.

The more people made, the more they bought, the greedier they got and the higher the house prices rose.

In the middle of all that is the poor person. They cant take a low wage job and afford to live now, it's simply impossible. They find employment, find their benefits stopped and find themselves worse off than when they weren't working. A catch 22 situation but still not their fault.

Then there's the fact that if between 1979 and 1989 house prices rose from 20K to 95K, the cost of welfare payments to pay for rent for those that need help, also went through the roof. The same house would cost around £270k now which would mean if wages rose by a similar amount, average salary for someone 18 - 25 would be something around £80k a year now rather than £15k to £20k

At the same time utilities have been privatised and the prices gone through the roof.

The local taxes that were rates and are now called council tax is off the scale compared to what it used to be in relations to someone earnings.

And all of that is why we are in the recession we are in now. Its the house price boom that has caused the mess, people had to turn to the sub prime market to get a roof over their heads, prices continued rising and rising and a 3 year old could tell it couldn't continue.

All that's happened is property developers and estate agents have got rich and everyone else is worse off with mortgage payments off the scale due to the cost of their houses.

Yet I guarantee you when house prices start rising our government will be happy.

And all most people want to do is an honest days work and be able to live.

At the same time companies have ignored their workers who help build their companies up, outsourced to cheap labour abroad meaning there isn't the jobs for those that do want to work, and those jobs that do exist are mainly minimum wage.

The greed of society is what's caused such a great need for welfare over the years and I cant see it getting any better.

thatcher is the one person I can think of where I shall openly rejoice the day she dies, and anyone that knows me in real life would know how out of character saying such a thing is, but I despise what she did to this country and how many lives she wrecked.

I don't know what kind of voodoo you use, but I for one plan to stay on your good side.

Our Mrs Thatcher, the most divisive and in many ways hated prime minister we have had in the modern era, with a vicious and uncaring public image was capable (and many examples have surfaced over the years) of astonishingly kind and generous personal gestures, quite at odds with her public persona.

I was going to say Hitler probably loved his dogs, but I didn't want to Godwin myself and someone beat me to it.

-Glibness/superficial charm-Grandiose sense of self-worth-Pathological lying-Cunning/manipulative-Lack of remorse or guilt-Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)-Callousness; lack of empathy-Failure to accept responsibility for his or her own actions

Some people I know are quite nice and very caring to those around them, but harbor surprisingly intense racist views / superior entitled feelings / misogyny which is usually directed towards those not so near. Every time I encounter this I'm flummoxed anew by how people can not only entertain, but integrate seemingly diametrically opposite principles into their world view. We are physically incapable of evaluating ourselves in a truly independent manner, and I can only suppose that this is what leads to blind spots and other malfunctioning defense mechanisms. Throw some power into the mix and things can get scary.Over a long distance, you learn about the strength of your horse; over a long time, you learn about the character of your friend. - Chinese Proverb

Those on the right here seem to be talking a lot about liberty. I like liberty. Living in the US, how do I get more of it?

For instance, who do I vote for to keep the government off the backs of my female & LGBT friends and family? Not the Rs. Social conservatives here seem intent on controlling women's reproductive systems, and pretty much hate the gay. They aren't exactly pro-minority either.

Maybe I think the Fed is taking too much of my tax money and giving it to the military and "defense" contractors to kill people abroad. Who do I vote for to minimize this? Not the R's, they always want to expand the military (and in so doing ironically expand the wasteful Fed they claim to hate so much).

If I feel that the state should be completely secular and that the government should keep it's nose out of my religious affairs, who do I vote for? Not the R's, the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity are part of their platform.

Taking my life is the ultimate in lost liberty. Which party should I vote for so that my chances of being murdered by the state (for whatever reason) are diminished? Not the Rs, they fully embrace the death penalty. If it turns out I was innocent my rotting corpse can't exactly appeal from the grave.

So I don't get it. Is the word "liberty" just code for gun rights and sticking it to the poors? Why all the bitterness?

It's so weird though Dewster - you are obviously referring to Mac - but I quite often find those with what I would call the most right wing, laissez-faire, look-after-number-one attitudes about society and community and all that big stuff are often, on a more individual, personal level, the kindest most generous people. There are some high profile examples. Our Mrs Thatcher, the most divisive and in many ways hated prime minister we have had in the modern era, with a vicious and uncaring public image was capable (and many examples have surfaced over the years) of astonishingly kind and generous personal gestures, quite at odds with her public personua.

So it might not be wise to judge so harshly - although I completely take your point.

You can say exactly the same about almost anyone on the planet including Hitler.

For every one of her kind gestures, I can show you a whole community she ruined and the gravestones of those she drove to suicide. I am a very forgiving person who tries to see good in everyone, but thatcher is the one person I can think of where I shall openly rejoice the day she dies, and anyone that knows me in real life would know how out of character saying such a thing is, but I despise what she did to this country and how many lives she wrecked.

I despise the fact that, in the decades before her, the economic foundations of the country were permitted to decline to such a low point that drastic measures were required. Had the economy she faced coming in not been made to deteriorate so badly before her, the cures would have been much less painful.

For instance, who do I vote for to keep the government off the backs of my female & LGBT friends and family? Not the Rs. Social conservatives here seem intent on controlling women's reproductive systems, and pretty much hate the gay. They aren't exactly pro-minority either.

It's quite problematic that there isn't a coherent set of beliefs that divide conservative and liberal philosophies. Certainly economic and social conservatism are basically orthogonal. Your feelings about one have little power to predict your feelings about the other. And it's problematic that the political parties don't line up very cleanly on those either. Political parties are kind of like politicians. They have some kind of beliefs but for the most part they are just looking for votes, so the split up the electorate in some way that makes sense to them.

For most of this discussion we have been restricting ourselves to economic conservatism vs liberalism, and with good reason. Those ideas generalize a little better than social issues and they are also more fundamental/important in my opinion. I would argue that decisions like gay marriage and other social issues should be decided at the local or at least state level, where the group of people affected can be more-or-less in agreement and where people who feel strongly enough can move to a different locality. This again supports the generally conservative position that those issues shouldn't decided by the federal government and imposed on everyone. The nation was founded on the principle that different states have different needs and want different laws, but it's a principle that is contradicted all the time today. The feds bully states around (both for liberal and conservative causes) and it causes a lot of ire.

As for the military stuff, in principle conservatives should be arguing to limit spending on that to just what's needed (as they should in everything). In practice, when the parties split up the electorate, republicans took military personnel and those who support expanding military power. For the most part that's a hangover from the debate about how to handle the cold war--at the time the democrats took the other side in order to scoop up the pot-smoking hippies. But in the absence of the threat of communism, there's nothing particularly conservative (or liberal, in the usual sense of the word) about wanting to be the world police.

...in the decades before her, the economic foundations of the country were permitted to decline to such a low point that drastic measures were required. Had the economy she faced coming in not been made to deteriorate so badly before her, the cures would have been much less painful.

Certainly the bold point should provide common ground where most of us can find agreement.

However, how drastic the measures needed were of "Milk Snatcher Thatcher", how they were taken and the deep implications of what their legacy has been have left the UK to enter into a much more sinister kind of decay of moral values and cultural decline -- precisely the same kind of decline of that the US is experiencing after having the country be taken over by plutocratic profiteers who have weakened & destroyed the democratic institutions, made a mockery of fairness and well-functioning markets (including labour markets) without respect for the rule of law and a level playing field of equal opportunity, leaving behind deep polarization and divisions among citizens with even bigger, more intractable permanent underclasses than before.

It should come as no surprise that the US and the UK are very much in the same sorry boat anno 2013. After all, "The government(=We the people) is the enemy"-Reaganism was an earnest copy of "Let's sell everything we've got for a song"-Thatcherism packaged and marketed by the boys at the Heritage Foundation using a B-actor as the front man to sell the idea of freely giving up ones' right to self-determination to Americans like so much toothpaste. Americans let America be taken over by a cruel British meme without so much as a fight, despite having more guns than people.

Maggie Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan were two demented sides of the same carnie huckster's two-headed coin used to flim flam their respective populations into participating in the biggest class warfare heist in their histories transferring wealth from the public into the hands of a tiny elite while transforming their economies into casino capitalism dependent on bubble after bubble of selling fraudulent insurance and financial instruments to each other.

When Thatcher came to power many Unions were out of control, no ones saying things didn't need to change but there's change and there's annihilation.

Arthur Scargill was ridiculed in the press and many people still write him off as a joke today, but almost without exception, every single thing he warned about became 100% true.

When I started work in the early 80s everyone I knew got a 1 hr lunch break, everyone worked the hours they were paid, and most companies treated their staff with a bit of respect.

Roll on to today, unions have almost dissapeared, the amount of people who I know that don't have a lunch break is unbelievable, many are paid until 5 or 5:30 pm but are often there until gone 7pm, and are scared of loosing their jobs if they stand up for their rights.

A factory near me got their staff to vote away their lunch break for an extra hours pay, I spoke to a few workers, they said they needed the money. They had 12 hr shifts with just two 10 min tea breaks. New staff thought they were breaking the law, it turned out they weren't.

Unions were there for a reason. Some needed their wings clipped as they got too big for their boots, but the overall need was real.

We now have very few and people are working longer and longer hours, scared to stick up for their rights and most are completely stressed out which is doing no good for their long term health.

There is political partisanship and rhetoric, and there are the rants of the paranoid schizophrenic. To me it feels like you blur the line, TheJourney. Maybe I have just never met anyone as extreme as you are (or at least as you talk) so I'm caught off guard.

You very much get the direction of change wrong, though. Government size, influence, and power in our lives and our economy has been continuously increasing, with short pauses (Reagan) but without any setbacks for all of recent history. You would have to go back before the great depression to find a case of the opposite, if there are any. I know this is true of the US. I'm assuming the situation is similar in other parts of the world (perhaps former communist countries are the exception but they are under new governments, so I don't count them).

It is not the nature of government to shrink or to relinquish any power or influence it takes from the people. That's an unfortunate and inescapable reality.

Also note that the corporations you speak of as if they were bad guys are amoral entities that seek only profit by definition. There is no way of changing that and never will be--that's not their function. They are tools (legal fictions around which people form contracts), not bad guys or good guys. It's the government's job to create a situation which these fictions have incentives to do the right thing. If they don't, the blame is the government's ineptitude.

Perhaps we agree on that point, though. I just get tired of people anthropomorphizing firms and assigning moral blame to them. Firms have never, and will never, have a heart. That is to be expected. If you are set on finding one in them, you can expect to be frustrated forever and you will never find a solution to the ills you perceive to be caused by them.

Unions were there for a reason. Some needed their wings clipped as they got too big for their boots, but the overall need was real.

Correct me if the situation is different in the UK, but unions are in a major secular decline in the US and it has nothing whatsoever to do with government action--quite the contrary, the unions that are still around have incredible leverage over the government. Workers have simply stopped supporting unions of their own free will. In most cases it's because the unions do more harm then good (there are very few controls to keep them from becoming corrupt...far fewer than there are in government or business).

You can argue that there ought to be more unions, but at least in the US you can't blame anyone in politics for it. Workers just don't want to be in unions the way they used to. Unions are kind of an old-economy thing.